The High Court has refused an application by an anonymised man seeking declarations that legal rules arising from an earlier judgment were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled that the applicant lacked standing to seek the declarations. The court’s decision concerned the application for declaratory relief; it did not find that voluntary patients generally may be detained outside the safeguards in the Mental Health Act 2001.
The application followed a January 2012 judgment about the applicant’s time as a patient at St Patrick’s University Hospital in 2011. His detention order, first made in September and renewed later that month, was revoked on 12 October after his consultant psychiatrist concluded that he no longer met the statutory criteria for involuntary detention.
The applicant then remained in the hospital as a voluntary patient. The judgment says he told staff he was willing to stay in the Special Care Unit and that his consultant considered him able to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of doing so.
On 21 November, he tried to leave by attempting to climb over a garden wall, but agreed after speaking with staff to remain. The following day, he again said he wanted to leave and withdrew his consent to staying voluntarily. Dr Séamus Ó Ceallaigh invoked section 23 of the Act so a second assessment could be carried out for possible detention under section 24. The doctor who assessed him concluded that he did not meet the criteria for detention. The judgment says the applicant was then agreeing to take medication and remain in the unit while working towards a less restrictive setting.
In the January judgment, Mr Justice Peart had concluded that the applicant had capacity to consent and did consent to remaining at the relevant times. He also found that the discussions with staff before the applicant agreed to stay fell within the permitted margin of appreciation, and that the periods complained of were not unlawful detention.
In the present application, the applicant argued that the earlier judgment established rules permitting detention without the safeguards available to people detained under the Act. The Human Rights Commission, which participated as amicus curiae, supported the application. The Attorney General opposed it.
Mr Justice Peart distinguished the case from European human rights decisions involving patients whose capacity or consent was absent or in doubt. He said the findings of capacity and consent in this case were central, and agreed with the Attorney General’s submission that the applicant lacked standing. He therefore refused the application.